bpmarko Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 'in mind' or not, an extension will not happen, because the aim of getting to where it might be necessary has been quietly dropped. Hence the plan for a little stadium. And what exactly has been supposedly done to reduce our chances of being promoted? Has the playing budget been reduced compared to that we would have had if we were building a massive stadium? Have we employed a manager on the cheap? Have we failed to strengthen the squad by not spending the minus £4-6M we would have had if we were buying shiny new seats? Have we sold players for nothing like their true value, whereas if we bought a 16k stadium we would have held on for more money? How in any way whatsoever will the current plan curtail our ambition. 'Showing Ambition' is just tawdry cliche, and you know it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Right. So if we did draw somebody big in the FA Cup we'd be limited to 12000. Imagine limiting United to 1500 tickets. even when we played city the ground wasnt full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Naive. It might have been a dream of theirs to run a football club, but without the land attached to the club they wouldn't have purchased it. Haven't they as good as said as much themselves? Naive? Which one of us has actually discussed it at some length with one of them? Oh yeah ... Yes, they wanted to fulfil their dream of running a football club. More specifically, that dream had developed over the years into one of running a club "their way", which was (and is) to combine their passion for football and business to develop - as they have said all along - a club that is self-sustaining through investment in additional income streams. I have to admit, this latest scheme seems to present less opportunity for truly fulfilling that dream than plans A (Ferney Fields) and B (full redevelopment of BP). But it does at least set out a viable plan for the club's long term survival and progression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 If increasing the cost of inreasing us to 16,000 seems so inconsequential, whay are you making that one of the main thrusts of your argument? Of course it will cost more. There is no need for such a white elephant that will be half empty apart from 4 or 5 days per year. It wouldn't be any more of a white elephant than the stadiums of any other clubs who don't fill them every game. Very few clubs actually do this. Even City. And, as already said, look at the size that stadiums have traditionally been in comparison to average gates. BP once held over 40000, yet our biggest ever average gate is around 18000. Old Trafford and Maine Road were absolutely enormous, yet neither club filled them every week. City's record attendance is 84000-their record average at Maine Road was barely half that. The story is the same up and down the country. The point is that stadiums were filled from time to time. Even BP. They still are, no matter what the differential between a club's average gate and ground capapcity. I don't accept that raising the finance for an extra 4000 seats, as per the BP plan, presents an insurmountable problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It wouldn't be any more of a white elephant than the stadiums of any other clubs who don't fill them every game. Very few clubs actually do this. Even City. And, as already said, look at the size that stadiums have traditionally been in comparison to average gates. BP once held over 40000, yet our biggest ever average gate is around 18000. Old Trafford and Maine Road were absolutely enormous, yet neither club filled them every week. City's record attendance is 84000-their record average at Maine Road was barely half that. The story is the same up and down the country. The point is that stadiums were filled from time to time. Even BP. They still are, no matter what the differential between a club's average gate and ground capapcity. I don't accept that raising the finance for an extra 4000 seats, as per the BP plan, presents an insurmountable problem. It might be though. Our budget is the value we can get for BP, so that we have no debt. THat sureley is the best outcome. No debt and enough income from the ancilliary buildigs to pay the annual costs, hopefully cvontributing to the football club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) It wouldn't be any more of a white elephant than the stadiums of any other clubs who don't fill them every game. Very few clubs actually do this. Even City. And, as already said, look at the size that stadiums have traditionally been in comparison to average gates. BP once held over 40000, yet our biggest ever average gate is around 18000. Old Trafford and Maine Road were absolutely enormous, yet neither club filled them every week. City's record attendance is 84000-their record average at Maine Road was barely half that. The story is the same up and down the country. The point is that stadiums were filled from time to time. Even BP. They still are, no matter what the differential between a club's average gate and ground capapcity. I don't accept that raising the finance for an extra 4000 seats, as per the BP plan, presents an insurmountable problem. And there you answer your own point, dispelling your own argument. Yes, virtually all teams run at far less than capacity, and as we know the vast majority of clubs are in, or near to financial meltdown. Instead of saying, everyone does so we should, why not look learn from people's failures and look at the successes, Man U, Arsenal etc, they run at capacity or virtually so, why shouldn't we? Man U could fill their ground three times over whenever they play their big games. But do they build a stadium three times the current size? No, they don't! And why? Because it's either physically impractical, or financially unjustifiable. Do you claim they lack ambition though? Edited July 23, 2009 by bpmarko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 No, not necessarily so. What about the fact that due to land restrictions at BP, once we get the stadium built that would most likely be that, barring major major rebuilding works. Whereas with a new custom built stadium built on larger, cheaper land, there is scope to have features like tier adding or upgrading stands, or filling corners or whetever gizmos the architects can come up with. It has already been cogently argued/explained how it makes financial sense in avoiding paying interest now on massive as yet unnecessary building works in favour of expandability for the future coupled with economic stability. It seems plain to me that it makes more sense to, even if you couldn't build in a close season, lose one season of some profits rather than pay three of four or possibly more seasons of interest on dusty seats. Lets face it, we are not really looking at dreaming for the future, though all of us would like to, but the very survival of the club. Within the constraints that we have this plan aims to secure the club, not bury it in debt as some would seem to want. We all have ambitions to see Latics back in the big time, but letrs be realistic, with Man City now the 'richest club in the world and less than ten miles away, Man U barely further and not looking like dipping any time soon, and Sky providing virtually non stop coverage for the multitude of fans who can't be arsed getting off their sofas to see a game, even a massive upturn in the economic climate is going to struggle to massively boost outr attendances. As many have supposed, one of the few ways of bringing fans back to our games is boosting the product on the pitch, and personally I see more chance of us getting a bigger playing budget by not blowing an extra however many million quid into buying seats that will not get used for at least the near future. As I predicted already, I suspect that there will be no significantly bigger playing squad budget coming out of all this, because the aim will be survival at the current level or below. As you articulate yourself, the aim is looking not to be to compete for fans with more successul rivals (aways difficult, admittedly), or even attracting as yet uncommitted or lapsed Latics fans with the promise of a little success, but to merely survive. Let's face it, survival for its own sake has been the aim (if you disregard the false dawns) for some time now. This project, as far as I can see, merely sets it in stone. Nothing has been 'cogently explained' by the way. Some people have merely come up with some different permuatations based on nothing but their own estimates as to why we have to lose 4000 seats from the BP project overnight. If the club announced that the curreent plan was to be scaled down to 7000, the same people would soon be doing the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't think I am quite ready to believe that I'm not asking anybody to believe anything, and it gives me no pleasure to say any of this. But just wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Trouble is we have not often drawn someone big in the FA in cup in the last 30 years. It is about as prudent as Gordon Browns fiscal competence to build a stadium for that once ina blue moon capacity. You cannot be seriosuly arguing we do that. We might as well build a 100,000 seater on the off chance the FA decide to move the national headquarters out of London/Wembley. Neither do most clubs, but they don't necessarily allow it to stifle their ambitions. Do none of you realise that you're arguing for exactly what I'm predicting will happen? Where else but Oldham would a section of the hardcore fan base argue enthusiastically for the downscaling of their club's ambitions? Edited July 23, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 As I predicted already, I suspect that there will be no significantly bigger playing squad budget coming out of all this, because the aim will be survival at the current level or below. As you articulate yourself, the aim is looking not to be to compete for fans with more successul rivals (aways difficult, admittedly), or even attracting as yet uncommitted or lapsed Latics fans with the promise of a little success, but to merely survive. Let's face it, survival for its own sake has been the aim (if you disregard the false dawns) for some time now. This project, as far as I can see, merely sets it in stone. Nothing has been 'cogently explained' by the way. Some people have merely come up with some different permuatations based on nothing but their own estimates as to why we have to lose 4000 seats from the BP project overnight. If the club announced that the curreent plan was to be scaled down to 7000, the same people would soon be doing the same thing. This is utter, utter nonsense. The club are making a concerted effort to, yes, initially, ensure survival of the club, but that is also the automatic first step of striving to further the club. This is surely the sort of thing you, of all people, have been crying out for. Isn't it widely accepted by now that there are two ways to achieve bigger gates: (i) win promotion; and (ii) build a new ground? One would hope that over the next few years we can achieve. Bigger gates fuel growth and hopefully improves things on the pitch and so on... Please, oh prophet, don't moan about significant efforts being made to avoid your dark predictions becoming reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 even when we played city the ground wasnt full Only because the police state that a few hundred seats have to remain empty for whatever reason. We could fill BP with City's fans alone if the club would allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Instead of saying, everyone does so we should, why not look learn from people's failures and look at the successes, Man U, Arsenal etc, they run at capacity or virtually so, why shouldn't we? This is surreal. They do that on the basis of ...consistent success. They do not do it on the basis of continual mediocrity, which is all that will be on offer from OAFC. For good. We are joining Rochdale, in one sense, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Only because the police state that a few hundred seats have to remain empty for whatever reason. We could fill BP with City's fans alone if the club would allow it. oh right. i must have missed the 'sold out' signs going up, and i dont know anyone who purchased a ticket the day before. *cancels sarcasm mode* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Naive? Which one of us has actually discussed it at some length with one of them? Oh yeah ... Yes, they wanted to fulfil their dream of running a football club. More specifically, that dream had developed over the years into one of running a club "their way", which was (and is) to combine their passion for football and business to develop - as they have said all along - a club that is self-sustaining through investment in additional income streams. I have to admit, this latest scheme seems to present less opportunity for truly fulfilling that dream than plans A (Ferney Fields) and B (full redevelopment of BP). But it does at least set out a viable plan for the club's long term survival and progression. So you've had a chat with one of TTA? Bully for you. Star struck? I don't know what you're arguing anyway-you concede above that they have admitted on more than one occasion that they sought to make the club financially independent and make money on the land around BP. What do you think attracted them to BP in the first place? I can see how the current plan might be a viable plan for survival (we shall see), but don't see how it is geared towards progression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It might be though. Our budget is the value we can get for BP, so that we have no debt. THat sureley is the best outcome. No debt and enough income from the ancilliary buildigs to pay the annual costs, hopefully cvontributing to the football club. Why not seek additional investment by stating that the aim is to emulate the likes of Bolton, instead of not seeking it and trying to emulate Rochdale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Man U could fill their ground three times over whenever they play their big games. But do they build a stadium three times the current size? No, they don't! And why? Because it's either physically impractical, or financially unjustifiable. No they couldn't. They don't sell out OT now for most games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So you've had a chat with one of TTA? Bully for you. Star struck? Aye, bully for me. Got an autograph and evryfink. Come on, they're not exactly unapproachable - I only mention it because it was an interesting and genuine insight. And yes, I did believe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) This is utter, utter nonsense. The club are making a concerted effort to, yes, initially, ensure survival of the club, but that is also the automatic first step of striving to further the club. This is surely the sort of thing you, of all people, have been crying out for. Isn't it widely accepted by now that there are two ways to achieve bigger gates: (i) win promotion; and (ii) build a new ground? One would hope that over the next few years we can achieve. Bigger gates fuel growth and hopefully improves things on the pitch and so on... Please, oh prophet, don't moan about significant efforts being made to avoid your dark predictions becoming reality. I've never thought that building a new ground in itself is the way to attract new fans. Those clubs who have built new stadiums and attracted new fans are those that appeared serious about advancing. Those that simply built new grounds while making it obvious, in one way or another, that they expected to go nowhere have, by and large, stood still and attracted no new fans except the initially curious, most of whom quickly drift away again. The way I understood it, the BP plan was geared towards financial self-suffiency as a way of funding promotion. I don't see that a 12000 seater stadium has a serious aim of higher division football behind it (it doesn't even have the aim of equalling the recent FA Cup tie attendance against Huddersfield behind it). If you do, fine. Edited July 23, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 oh right. i must have missed the 'sold out' signs going up, and i dont know anyone who purchased a ticket the day before. *cancels sarcasm mode* I don't care what you missed sunshine. Are you seriously denying that, were it possible to do so, we could fill a ground like BP, or the one on offer with City or United's fans alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 im not denying anything. im telling you that building 4000 extra seats to accomodate 800 extra people, for a game that doesnt exist, is rather silly, sunshine. not that you will understand that, as it is common sense. i share your concerns with regards the hotel and the like, which was supposed to help keep the club self sufficent. but i wouldnt put 4000 extra seats in to satisfy an 'if'. the only time it may be full would be the first game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 im not denying anything. im telling you that building 4000 extra seats to accomodate 800 extra people, for a game that doesnt exist, is rather silly, sunshine. not that you will understand that, as it is common sense. i share your concerns with regards the hotel and the like, which was supposed to help keep the club self sufficent. but i wouldnt put 4000 extra seats in to satisfy an 'if'. the only time it may be full would be the first game. Such FA Cup ties may not 'exist', but history proves that they do come along. And the fact is that we've pretty much filled the ground in such ties on, if I remember correctly, four occasions in the 21st century so far (Chelsea, City, Bolton, Huddersfield), as well as for two play-off semis. But the point is not to go off what has happened in the years when the club has been on its backside, but to be ambitious enough to surpass all that. This current plan would seem to embrace it. As others have said, if we have difficulty attracting 6-7000 for most league games, why not limit capacity to 8000? This is entirely in line with your thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 because i believe crowds will go up if we go up, to around 10000 on average. chelsea, bolton, city, hudderflid all less than 13000. so i reiterate that 4000 extra seats for 800 odd people is silly. i wont say it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 As I predicted already, I suspect that there will be no significantly bigger playing squad budget coming out of all this, because the aim will be survival at the current level or below. As you articulate yourself, the aim is looking not to be to compete for fans with more successul rivals (aways difficult, admittedly), or even attracting as yet uncommitted or lapsed Latics fans with the promise of a little success, but to merely survive. Let's face it, survival for its own sake has been the aim (if you disregard the false dawns) for some time now. This project, as far as I can see, merely sets it in stone. Nothing has been 'cogently explained' by the way. Some people have merely come up with some different permuatations based on nothing but their own estimates as to why we have to lose 4000 seats from the BP project overnight. If the club announced that the curreent plan was to be scaled down to 7000, the same people would soon be doing the same thing. So you are saying that, if we were spending more money on a larger stadium, this would prove the ambition to be greater, and also so would the playing budget be greater. So exactly how does that logic work? We spend more money on a stadium, therefore there is more money available to spend on players? Who exactly is stumping up this cash? Unless you are looking to follow the path the many clubs who sold their clubs into penury in the search of a 'big stadium' And as for the 'local' clubs you seem to love quoting as having passed us by, firstly how many of them have two of the richest teams in the country sat in their own virtual back garden? Half of Oldham's population wants to be noted as living in Manchester, whereas Blackburn, Preston, Bolton possibly to a lesser extent, and Wigan have intense rivalry to Manchester. Also, as for stadia, Deepdale took 12years to redevelop, the Reebok stadium's main quoted disadvantage is its small size and lack of expnasion possibilities. Burnley's ground wass a dump last time I looked, and funniliy enough they have just been promoted to the Premiership by concentrating on financial stability and a good manager and maximising on player deals. You seem to disparage the idea of fanancial stability as a long term goal, but the truth is, it is more than likely going to be our saviour, as more clubs get into difficulties, and disappear altogether. As for what the aim is, I can only express whay MY aims are, though they do appear to tally with TTA, and yes a major and absolutely essential aim is for us to be financially viable as a club. In fact this should be taken on board by all, yourself included, along with the fact that there is no glory on the field once the club has gone bust. So yes, the aim of financial security SHOULD be set in stone, but it does not mean that I, TTA or anyone else have given up on the dream of future success on the field, only that more important is the need for a club to exist to achieve that aim. As for why the reduction in capacity from BP, I have answered that in a previous reply, and yes it HAS cogently explained why we don't necessarily have to have a full capacity right now. Although it is clear that all the numbers currently are estimates sinced the architects have not even been comissioned yet, plainly the 12k stems from a basic four stands of 3k each, presumably built to standard 'lego' specs. And the argument about dropping to 7k is too specious to even bother with.And your little trick of dismissing anything anyonne else say as being unprovable conjecture whilst doing exactly the same yourself, is really unbecoming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Only because the police state that a few hundred seats have to remain empty for whatever reason. We could fill BP with City's fans alone if the club would allow it. Neatly side stepping the point of how infrequently we play City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Neither do most clubs, but they don't necessarily allow it to stifle their ambitions. Do none of you realise that you're arguing for exactly what I'm predicting will happen? Where else but Oldham would a section of the hardcore fan base argue enthusiastically for the downscaling of their club's ambitions? We have to downscale our plans. There is a Credit Crunching Recession. The plans have to change becasue the economic lanscape has complety. Even when our most recent plans were drawn up, money was freely avaialbe as debt. Now it is very difficult to come by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.